efm_get_class_monitor

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns current flow version, agent counts (online/missing), health status, and connection metrics, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it aggregates data from multiple sources, or any latency/caching behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the resource and key metrics. The parenthetical question at the end adds useful context without bloat. It earns its place, though the formatting with line breaks is slightly unusual.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide more guidance on the required agent_class parameter and how it relates to sibling tools. The core purpose is clear, but an agent might not know how to obtain a valid agent_class value.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'agent_class' parameter. The description mentions 'per-class' and 'agent class' context, but doesn't explicitly explain what values agent_class accepts or how to find valid class names (e.g., via efm_list_agent_classes). This is a gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('class monitor view'), and clarifies the core question it answers ('is this class healthy and how many agents are up?'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like efm_get_agent_class by focusing on health/connection metrics rather than class configuration, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for checking class health and agent counts, which is a clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like efm_get_agent_class or efm_list_agents for more detailed agent-level information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.